Carpe diem I shall seize the opportunity to address any and all “USEFUL IDIOTS”, especially those who are even unaware that they are “USEFUL IDIOTS” aka “Cultural Marxists”.

First of all, let us be clear here: Cultural Marxism is NOT just some misappropriated simpleton “snarl word”, to smear the presumed compassionate and well-intentioned high ideals of the Left, dontchya know. (my gorge rises)

Yes – yes… OK – let us all agree that the term “Cultural Marxism” has been misappropriated by silly conspiracy theorists, particularly by the “alt-right” – whatever that term is supposed to mean. That said, Cultural Marxism still remains a real phenomenon – a legacy of postmodernism and “Critical Theory” – a legacy most foul and murderous and championed by USEFUL IDIOTS!

Useful idiots? … those would include socially progressive Social Justice Warriors who who persist in posting Che Guevara posters above cinderblock bookshelves in university dorms stocked with unread textbooks on gender studies, race studies, and intersectionality, dontchya know.

Useful Idiots? … those would include virtue-signaling historically illiterate iconoclast undergrads who desecrate Confederate Flags without noticing their intellectual light-weight professors still remain Lynyrd Skynyrd fans. Historically illiterate iconoclasts who even now consider demolishing Mount Rushmore after tearing down the last statue to General Robert E. Lee. Yes, Lee, whose views on slavery were far more enlightened than Abraham Lincoln’s. Virtue-signaling Social Justice Warriors indeed – morons – all of them! I’ll bet they never even heard of Shelby Foote.

Useful idiots? … those would include those demonic professors who cut their teeth during the student riots of 1968. Virtue-signally professors who still enjoy playing Pete Seeger folk songs – Seeger, that nostalgic Stalinist who released an embarrassingly ill-timed and quickly recalled album titled “Songs of John Doe” – an album which PRAISED the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact! Bastard! Sons-of-a-Bitch! Pete Seeger and all like him can rot in Hell!

Useful Idiots? … A Pox on all of you who would celebrate May 1 and sing the Internationale! Yes! Go to Hell, all of you! Even you, who may be too embarrassed to sing the Internationale and sing instead Cultural Marxism’s new anthem – John Lennon’s song “Imagine”. Yes! Imagine even how virtue-signaling BDS SJWs who persist in singing that Lennon song, echoing in the same streets, but a generation ago, with the same the resounding resonance of the Horst Wesel Lied. Imagine BDS SJWs, who share the same Jew-Hatred of those very terrorists still attacking even as we speak, innocent victims in cities across Europe – Yes! … and witness our European leaders even singing that John Lennon song, while marching arm-in-arm over paving stones freshly spattered with the blood of innocent victims – victims to Jew-hating terrorists… a hatred shared by Cultural Marxism.

Yes indeed – today is May 1 – a day to commemorate the victims of Marxism both past, present and future. Rot in Hell – all of you who take pleasure in celebrating whatever this day stands for.

Let us pray that all universities be purged of Humanity Departments – indoctinators of Cultural Marxism – destroyers of civilization – groomers of sex-offenders and desecrators of all Western Culture holds dear. The pseudo-atheist anti-Semitic Cultural Marxist indoctrination of the Left must be extirpated once and for all. Amen!

139 Replies to “Commemorating May 1”

Careful though, Tom might have ‘preemptively rebutted’ it already! (That’s, like, one of his fortes, which I think he may have mentioned a couple of times. Pretty clear you’re up to the task, however, Robert.)

Well actually – Jordan Peterson is not so original either – however he is more eloquent than I. And you too are far from original in your pathetic defense of Leftist indoctrination.

Here is some more Peterson: on the intellectual rot in modern humanities departments still spouting the dogmatic drivel which constitutes postmodern “critical theory”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSzpc2vh8Ow
Peterson does a great job of making the necessary connections in a minimum of time
… and why I fear for the future because today’s university students are NOT being taught history!

Like Peterson and others, I remain dumbfounded. Monuments to the victims of fascism exist everywhere, but communism’s victims remain an inconvenient truth and easily forgotten. Which brings me to your next shibboleth

I’m most annoyed, though by your claims about Confederate monuments and about the origins of the U.S. Civil War, both of which are horrendously wrong. And your hiding behind Shelby Foote

“Wrong”? Really? Why would that be?

Perhaps it is easier for me with my historical perspective as a German who understands German history than it is for you… but I thought you more capable to understand nuance and subtlety. Germans can erect monuments commemorating their brave sons who perished in WW II without simultaneously endorsing the evil of Nazism. It would appear you are unable to understand that.

I am NOT “HIDING” behind the gravitas of Shelby Foote who destroys your failed thesis. A flag is indeed a symbol – and a symbol can mean different things to different people.

When the “Confederate” flag is deliberately carried side by side with Swastika flags, it is a symbol of evil.

The “Dixie” flag is proudly displayed as a symbol of “reconstruction” and renewal. The expression “The South shall rise again!” … can be a manifestation of proud cultural identity separate and divorced from the historical institution of “slavery’. Slavery BTW was practiced by almost every signatory of the Declaration of Independence, do not forget that. So it is not only redneck dumbass rednecks who name their pickups ‘general lee’ who take pride in the “Dixie Flag”.

Which is why I had with premeditated (not to mention preemptive) forethought deliberately cited Lynyrd Skynyrd.

No, I am hiding behind Shelby Foote – I just abhor the cult of political correct iconoclasts destroying America’s monuments as we speak. … and unlike you apparently – I do not deem it a good idea to continue this postmodern policy of political correctness by tearing down statues of Washington and Jefferson, statues which are no less “horrendously wrong” than Dixie Flags and statues of Confederate soldiers, dontchya know.

TomMueller: Oh wow… I never thought you would take that bait and commit the FALLACY of
“….But That Wasn’t Real Communism, Socialism, or Marxism!”

Again, I cannot claim originality… Jordan Peterson does a better job of pillorying Western Left-Wing “Intellectuals” and why students on campuses today clearly know nothing of 20th Century history.

And you of course assume that everybody commenting here (other than yourself) is a student on some American university campus. Unluckily for you, real-life Communism is in fresh human memory and can easily be compared with your stupid caricature.

Reducing Marxism (and Socialism and Communism) to a snarl word that is interchanged with Fascism on the fly is sadly a very prominent feature in current American conservative rhetoric. It’s mere pointless negative rhetoric with nothing constructive to offer.

TomMueller,
Another rant, and a condescending one at that. There’s really no adequate way to respond to these rants.

It’s well established that the purpose of Confederate monuments was not to honor dead soldiers but to be symbols of “the lost cause” and white supremacy. Those monuments are history, but not the history you suppose. And nobody is tearing down statues of Washington and Jefferson.

Similarly, the timing of the prevalence of the Confederate flag shows that it was a response to the civil rights movement, not a symbol of “southern culture” — by which you mean specifically white southern culture, as if those inconvenient other folks are not real southerners. The Dukes of Hazard was a TV show: fiction.

I would be interested (though only as an example of pathology, I admit) in your argument — not just a link to Shelby — that the Civil War was not about slavery. The war of course began purely as a response to secession, or more properly as a southern response to Lincoln’s refusal to accept secession and evacuate federal property. But what was secession about, pretty much exclusively? Why did Lincoln’s election trigger it? At bottom, it’s all about slavery.

As a person born in the south, but not indoctrinated in Southern mores, I freely admit that the South of my childhood was as bigoted as it is stereotyped. Or at least there were a lot of people — probably a majority — who were.

However, over time the democratic party that presided over Jim Crow, evolved away from obvious bigotry, and managed to do even more damage to black families with counterproductive welfare policies. (I’m not ranting against a safety net, just the implementation.)

Meanwhile, I drive through a lot of middle class neighborhoods looking at garage sales and estate sales. What strikes me is that most neighborhoods are integrated, and exist without fanfare or incident. These are pretty much the same people who rioted over lunch counter integration when I was a child.

The evil of segregation was enforced by law, and a couple of generations after the law changed, bigotry is noticeably fading. I think it would fade into noise if the law refused to codify and enforce the concept of race.

I personally find it very interesting that Marxism/Communism share the majority of ideological principles with Christianity…

Unfortunately, both have failed to apply those principles and that’s why we see the mess and confusion in the ideologies today… Knowing what’s is good for society and applying it are two different things…

Not true. I’d actually be very interested in hearing what you take to be the similarities of Christianity and Marxism. Also what you take to be the key(s) to knowing how to apply what one considers good for society. Those issues interest me.

Not true. I’d actually be very interested in hearing what you take to be the similarities of Christianity and Marxism. Also what you take to be the key(s) to knowing how to apply what one considers good for society. Those issues interest me.

There’s a very nice Rorty essay on Christianity and Marxism called “Failed Prophecies, Glorious Hopes.” It’s in the Philosophy and Social Hope collection.

TomMueller: uhmmmm…that would be VERY incorrect.Any similarities would be superficial… along the lines of any presumed equivalent similarities between Hegel and Kant would be similarly superficial!

Hegel vs Kant?…what an ironic twist this thread has taken while considering the evils of Communism

Try to define both Marxism/Communism and Christianity; the principles they were build on that appealed to people…You may find them more similar than you think…
Both Marxism/Communism and Christianity have blood on their hands but that is not the ideological fault. They both paid lip service to the principles they were supposed to apply…

John Harshman
It’s well established that the purpose of Confederate monuments was not to honor dead soldiers but to be symbols of “the lost cause” and white supremacy. Those monuments are history, but not the history you suppose.

Well established? Well established by whom, pray tell? Historically illiterate but politically correct credit-card-card carrying Socialists still in thrall to the leaders of the 1968 student riots, writing ill-informed op-ed articles to the NYT and WP?

Let us be clear here: YES – White Supremacists applauded the erection of those Confederate statues – the same White Supremacists who enacted Jim Crow Laws in the South. There is can be no argument on that score.

However, your conclusion still does not follow… i.e. your most fatuous conclusion that statues to confederate soldiers was ONLY about White Supremacy and ONLY a celebration of Jim Crow Laws. Rubbish! Truth is a little more subtle and nuanced.

First of all, correlation is NOT causation. The erection of those statues commenced in full speed AFTER “Reconstruction”, as imposed by the North was halted. Erection of those statues coincided with a growing and ever more popular sentiment – both North & South – for reconciliation between brothers-at-arms on BOTH sides of the conflict. On this score there is also NO dispute. I invite to google The Great Reunion of 1913 if you doubt me.

Similarly, the timing of the prevalence of the Confederate flag shows that it was a response to the civil rights movement, not a symbol of “southern culture” — by which you mean specifically white southern culture, as if those inconvenient other folks are not real southerners. The Dukes of Hazard was a TV show: fiction.

I already answered that… and you are most certainly wrong! (Which is why I provided links to both Shelby Foote and to Lynard Skynner)

Regarding the flag: The Veterans of both sides during the Reunion of 1913 would vehemently disagree. (see attached photo)

Regarding Southern Culture as distinct from that of the North:

I find it most ironic how a Canadian needs to school an American on details of US history.

FTR – Canadians (British North Americans actually) were VERY sympathetic to the Confederate South and their cause. Yes – Canada was also the final destination of the “underground Railway” and yes – Canadians despised slavery as an institution (no differently than Robert E. Lee also did BTW) … however, British North Americans together with the South shared common fears regarding the AGGRESSIVE economic, military and political hegemonism of the North and “Canada” feared invasion of the enemy no less than the South (let’s not forget 1812).

As a matter of fact – Canadians attribute their national salvation and escape from the full déroulement of the Munroe Doctrine to the fortuitous timing of the Civil War, which prevented a hitherto inevitable invasion of Canada.

Canada even offered honored Jefferson Davis celebrity status and enthusiastically warm welcome to his new home among like-minded friends and allies.

Davis only reluctantly accepted Canadian hospitality because Davis preferred to stand trial for treason to publicly challenge the notion that secession was actually illegal or treasonous. Davis refused to apologize and refused any consideration of a pardon but instead resolutely remained determined to stand trial. His duplicitous Northern captors were far less eager to proceed to trial. Only when his finances and health both failed – did Davis give up the futility of a waiting for a trial never in the offing and finally move to Canada, to enjoy the company of kindred spirits.

John Harshman:TomMueller con’t…,
I would be interested (though only as an example of pathology, I admit) in your argument — not just a link to Shelby — that the Civil War was not about slavery. The war of course began purely as a response to secession, or more properly as a southern response to Lincoln’s refusal to accept secession and evacuate federal property. But what was secession about, pretty much exclusively? Why did Lincoln’s election trigger it? At bottom, it’s all about slavery.

What about Lincoln? Well Lincoln remains a controversial figure whose legacy is complicated by his premature assassination… you also ask me for other authorities other than Shelby Foote… really?! … there is no authority more preeminent on the Civil War other than Shelby Foote – but rather than bandy back and forth – who is and who is not and authority on Lincoln – let us, instead examine the data for ourselves and read Lincoln in his own words:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. “

And Lincoln was true to his word, even after Gettysburg. Some Americans fail to appreciate that the border SLAVE states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri remained with the Union and were exempted from Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863. Slaves still remained property – even in those four states in the Union!

There you have it – Shelby Foote was correct – Lincoln in his own words said this was not JUST about slavery!

… well not exactly. Lincoln’s thinking was more nuanced and subtle than yours… Which explains my earlier enthusiasm for Shelby Foote who was absolutely correct when claiming:

“People who say that slavery had nothing to do with the war are just as wrong as people who say that slavery had everything to do with the war…”

Please note that Lincoln’s 1862 Letter to Horace Greeley was written AFTER the Civil War had already started!

But I did look for appraisals other than Shelby Foote’s… and stumbled across a very intriguing assessment. Any author who can quote Frederic Bastiat with such aplomb deserves attention. http://www.thegreatfiction.com/about/

I invite you to examine the historical data provided and ask whether or not the author is guilty of historical revisionism.

I first became intrigued with this historical digression when reading a recent book by Bart Ehrman – who made some very interesting arguments about “collective memory” when discussing the evolution of “Higher Christology” which bears no resemblance to the “historical Jesus”.

Ehrman’s intriguing metaphor was his juxtaposition of Dixie memories to Yankee memories of Abraham Lincoln and how such collective memories evolved in response to current events immediately after Lincoln’s assassination and in response to events occurring during the Civil Rights Movement. The collective memory most Americans share of Abraham Lincoln is no less a “great fiction” than current Christology touted by preachers in church – which too evolved, and in response to current events of the first three centuries Common Era.

Bottom line: current mythology of Lincoln’s legacy is
1 – not unanimously held by all Americans
2 – no less a fiction than the mythology of Christ

Moving along – let’s talk about the motivations of statues commemorating Northern soldiers who perished in the Civil War:

Statues to the Union soldiers were in fact NO LESS “white supremacist” than confederate counter-parts!

Only a small minority in the North ever considered the Negro as “equal” – to put it bluntly in terms which are as offensive to me as they are to you. The obnoxious North hypocritically clung to the notion that even though Blacks were inferior to whites – slavery remained evil – but equality and black suffrage was NOT the reason young Northerners went to war. You should have no difficulty confirming such historical observations for which I claim no originality – check out Bart Ehrman’s eloquence.

To quote a German Trope: “Feindeslob Klingt”… I am not really a fan of John Oliver, but must concede credit when credit is due. Jim Crow? The North never enacted Jim Crowe because they never needed to resort to such unsubtle methods. Their racism was far more genteel and delivered with a gentle self-righteous smile.

Even today New York schools remain more segregated than New Orleans schools! The hypocrisy of virtue signaling self-righteous NY or CA Leftards makes my gorge rise!

TomMueller: What about Lincoln?Well Lincoln remains a controversial figure whose legacy is complicated by his premature assassination…you also ask me for other authorities other than Shelby Foote…really?!

No, not really. I asked you for evidence and argument. You have to exit rant mode and start both reading what other people say to you and responding on point rather than throwing out a mass of verbiage.

Your adulation of Foote is misplaced. He’s at best a popular historian and Ken Burns talking head. At worst, he’s a romanticizing apologist for the Lost Cause.

Your Lincoln quote is irrelevant to the question of the causes of the Civil War, as is everything else you say. Try arguing against my claims rather than your imagination. Those claims again: the overwhelming purpose of secession was the preservation of slavery, occasioned by the election of a Republican President. The southern states rightly understood that an end to slavery’s expansion would eventually doom the institution, and that there would eventually be a congressional majority for emancipation. Lincoln refused to accept secession, notably refusing to hand over such federal property as Buchanan had not already abandoned, and the war began through southern military action to claim that property. The war began as a fight over secession but turned into a crusade against slavery.

I will also note that slave owners and the immediate relatives of slave owners were highly over-represented in the Confederate army as contrasted with the general population. The secession statements of most states emphasized slavery as the predominant “state’s right” to be defended. This should come as no surprise to one so versed in history as yourself.

Statues to the Union soldiers were in fact NO LESS “white supremacist” than confederate counter-parts!

That’s the most nonsensical thing you have said so far, and the competition is fierce. You defend this claim with another series of irrelevant facts. It’s true that racism was (is) widespread in the north, but that’s not relevant to the motivation for putting up statues.

Tom Mueller
i read Canada brought up.
There is too many topics here and i don’t understand the anger on all sides.
Anyways.
Canada was not a democracy and so what the Canadians/French Canadians/foreign immigrants thought is speculative. They had little influence on any gov’t. jUst like today in the present dictatorship. REALLY! Probably the true Canadians, yankee immigrants, supported the North and the immigrant British supported the South on a curve.
The brit immigrants( prot Irish, Scots, English) would be hostile to the essence of Yankee America. so yes they would welcome Davis. Real Canucks would not be that way. In fact everybody had limited information.
Why did this stray into that from Marx?
There is no connection.
Marxisn, then or now, never influenced more then 1-3 % of the population.
If marx never existed there would be no difference in North America today.
We have the sam,e simple struggles as we always did.
Religion, identity, class, relationships, . Just different pawns.

Robert Byers:
Tom Mueller
i read Canada brought up.
There is too many topics here and i don’t understand the anger on all sides.
Anyways.
Canada was not a democracy and so what the Canadians/French Canadians/foreign immigrants thought is speculative. They had little influence on any gov’t. jUst like today in the present dictatorship. REALLY! Probably the true Canadians, yankee immigrants, supported the North and the immigrant British supported the South on a curve.
The brit immigrants( prot Irish, Scots, English) would be hostile to the essence of Yankee America. so yes they would welcome Davis. Real Canucks would not be that way. In fact everybody had limited information.
Why did this stray into that from Marx?
There is no connection.
Marxisn, then or now, never influenced more then 1-3 % of the population.
If marx never existed there would be no difference in North America today.
We have the sam,e simple struggles as we always did.
Religion, identity, class, relationships, . Just different pawns.

Robert,
If you had not told me this “truth” I would have never known…
BTW: Are you in prison, Rob?

Kantian Naturalist: That’s correct. I have a friend who has had the grave misfortune of having moved to Halifax in Nova Scotia. He tells me that it’s exactly like living in North Korea.

I don’t know if your kidding but!
Its not like N Korea . its like it was when canada was ruled from britain without English rights but only colonial rights. the reason americans left britain was because of being denied their english rights. So a attack on liberity and so dictaoprship.
right now canada is ruled by the courts/human right courts and so is back to the 1840’s etc.
its a real historic development. Its a illegal usurpation and so Canasdians owe no obediance to the gov’t. Its like before 1688 and the rightful glorious revolution.

I admit, my original OP was a less than academic provocation designed to ferret out SJWs for sport. I am surprised you took the bait.

Let’s be clear here:

I remain in your debt for you have taught me much in your field of expertise. I thank you.

That said – I am an amateur historian – you are not. I read in three languages – you do not. I have the time to say abreast of current events in three languages and several others in translation – while you are better occupied with your time. All said, I concede you are more expert in certain domains than I will ever hope to be, the converse is also true.

You make some blanket statements without offering evidence. I, on the other hand, in defference to your greater intelligence than most SJWs, responded by calmly buttressing each of my own contentions with hard data… most of which you blithely ignored.

Not only did I offer the opinions of other academics other than Shelby Foote, I cut straight to the chase and offered you a quotation of Abraham Lincoln himself. As hard data goes – it cannot get better!

You again chose to ignore the Lincoln citation and instead persisted in resorting to argumenta ad hominem execrating the credentials of Shelby Foote. OK, even though I have provided more hard data than Shelby Foote citations, let’s play it your way and examine Foote’s credentials.

Foote was a three-time Guggenheim Fellow and Ford Foundation Fellow! His expertise was highly sought, so much so that he was lecturer at the University of Virginia and at Memphis State and guest lecturer at countless other academic institutions across the nation. His Manuscripts and Papers are archived at the highly esteemed (cf The Princeton Review, U.S. News, Fiske Guide to Colleges, Forbes, etc) Rhodes College.

Foote reminds me of my favorite my favorite philosophy professor who lectured with no higher credentials than a Masters and Bachelors degree… yet was considered Canada’s foremost philosopher before moving stateside.

Enough on Sheby Foote’s bona fides Let’s reboot:

You claim:

Your Lincoln quote is irrelevant to the question of the causes of the Civil War, as is everything else you say

Let me ask you a question: What part of …

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. Abraham Lincoln

… do you not understand?!

You also challenge as absurd my claim that

Statues to the Union soldiers were in fact NO LESS “white supremacist” than confederate counter-parts!

On this point, I happen to be correct and you otherwise. You ask for other authorities in Civil War History – and I provided much material embedded in links provided earlier. How about Historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel? He correctly observed that there was virtually no difference in the racial attitudes of northern whites compared to southern whites, writing that “both practiced safe white supremacy, the black minority being either enslaved [in the South] or legally discriminated against [in the North].”

Ergo … my John Oliver citation above.

You allude to the Compromise of 1850. Your naïve version of events is most amusing. Yes, Northerners were against extending slavery into the West, but not out of concern for the plight of the blacks, but for the advantage of whites.

Another historian Eugene Berwanger wrote that during the election of 1860 “Republicans made no pretense of being concerned with the fate of the Negro and insisted that theirs was a party of white labor.” It was all about the economic disadvantage of white pioneers being able to eke out subsistence survival in the face of unfair competition by unpaid slaves.

All these historians agree with Shelby Foote’s summary… and I repeat

“People who say that slavery had nothing to do with the war are just as wrong as people who say that slavery had everything to do with the war…”

How about some more hard data? Here is Lincoln again in his own words:

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race…

… I surely will not blame [Southerners] for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, – to their own native land… [But] free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this…

Abraham Lincoln in rebuttal to the accusation that he believed in racial equality during an 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas

As I mentioned earlier, Lincoln appeared to tracing the trajectory of an upward arc of enlightened thinking and this quote could possibly no longer accurately represent Lincoln’s thinking upon assassination, but one historical fact remains certain. This quote does indeed summarize the majority opinion of the North upon completion of the Civil War, and I can provide a plethora of evidence to buttress this indisputable non-rant claim. You are clearly out of your depth and on the wrong side of history here – so let’s just move on.

My original screed intended to flush out ‘SJWs’ whose thinking has been perverted by Marxist indoctrination under the guise of ‘Critical Theory’, SJW NeoMarxists typically rebut along the very lines you offered. They are intellectual lightweights and historical ignorami. Imagine my surprise to witness your claim

Marx was not a big fan of genocide, and you can’t lay it on him. Lenin and his heirs would be more to the point. John Harshman

I was most astonished!… and again you betray decided lack of expertise in the field of history!

Let us reexamine Marx in his own words:

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible…

Of course, an army of Leftard apologists would claim that salient quote is cited out of context, forgetting all the while that Marx repeatedly advocated the destruction of capitalism via violence and class warfare.

Leftard apologetics are unreservedly WRONG!

For a historical perspective, Marx’s own views on the necessity of violence, even resort to genocide, were in response to the violent response against the 1848 revolutions as well as the crushed “idealists” of the Paris Commune, to name just two examples. So just how far did Marx endorse violence?

With an eye to the failed Paris Commune he remarked

Can we expect revolutionaries to impose limits on their violence when confronted with a brutal counter-revolutionary force? Can we ask them to jeopardize the revolution for ‘conscientious scruples’?

Elsewhere Marx writes

We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror…

Marx endorsed terror and mass murder, and his descendants took him at his word. NKVD, Tcheka, Holodomor, Great Leap Forward, Che Guevara & Castro, Senderoso Luminoso, Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge, you name them. They all justified their slaughter of countless innocents by direct citations of Marx’s writings summarized in the Communist Manifesto providing a simple conclusion based on simple premises; i.e. that the “selfish individual” is to be sacrificed for the good of “the collective”.

TomMueller: Pious & public platitudes aside, you should not be so hard on yourself walto…

Whatever a “pious and public platitude” may be, I’m very grateful for your concern. People may think they know what a caring person you are already from your many thoughtful posts on culture, but remarks like this will just double confirm their views! They’ll be able to see that you’re also a plum on the personal level.

TomMueller: I find 28 pages of google search confirming that SJWs, from coast to coast, are shrilly shrieking for the removal of statues to Jefferson and to Washington

63 million people voted for Trump, I would worry first about the damage those people inflicted on the US before I would get in a dither about people exercising their first admendment right calling for removal of a piece of marble or bronze. In addition neither Jefferson or Washington were seditious traitors who betrayed their country unlike the confederates who were.

newton: In addition neither Jefferson or Washingtonwere seditious traitors who betrayed their country unlike the confederates who were.

I presume you do not visit Canada very often! I currently reside in the Loyalist city of Saint John New Brunswick where Washington and Jefferson are still considered seditious traitors and Benedict Arnold is regarded the loyal and honorable patriot!

Whenever I visit America, I always bring along Laura Secord chocolates as gifts for my American hosts: the irony is as delicious as the candy!

It is not at all clear to me the Southern States were guilty of Sedition or Treason

My reading of history suggests calmer heads in the Union were similarly uncertain

As I already mentioned above, the captive Jefferson Davis remained an inconvenient embarrassment to the North for his very insistance he be tried for treason, while refusing any offer of clemency or pardon.

Only after it became clear Jefferson Davis would rot in jail before going to trial (so much for Habeas corpus) did his resolve cave and he accept a hearty welcome in exile amoung kindred spirits in what was soon to become Canada

It doesn’t seem outlandish to me that if you want to understand something, or have an informed opinion about it, you have to take the time to actually understand it. We hold that people to that standard when it comes to evolutionary theory, and I don’t see why we shouldn’t also hold people to that standard when it comes to left-wing social theory.

walto:
There is no proposal so stupid that you can’t find a couple hundred people to back it. That’s all in Mencken.

Yup , not only did we all (well almost all) of us missed the boat when Hale Bopp came around but go ahead and cruise through the multitude of alt-med sites and take a gander at the nonsense that folks will buy into.

QXCI is a state-of-the-art evoked potential bio-feedback system for stress detection. During testing, the device resonates with thousands of tissues, organs, nutrients, toxins and allergens for one hundredth of a second each, and records the degree to which your body reacts. The QXCI scans the patient’s body like a virus-scan on a computer, looking for everything from viruses, deficiencies, weaknesses, allergies, abnormalities and food sensitivities. It reports on the biological reactivity and resonance in your body and indicates needs, dysfunctions and vulnerabilities. The information provided is fundamentally different from X-rays, blood tests, etc., as it tells us about the energetic state of your body and the direction in which the body is focusing its energy.
The QXCI has been devised using the principles of Quantum Physics. Basically, during treatment, the QXCI measures the body’s resonance/reactance pattern and determines what benefit has occurred in the time period since the last measurement (less than a second earlier). If there has not been an improvement, the input resonance is altered. It maintains each beneficial setting as long as it is helping and changes it as soon as it is no longer useful.

It doesn’t seem outlandish to me that if you want to understand something, or have an informed opinion about it, you have to take the time to actually understand it. We hold that people to that standard when it comes to evolutionary theory, and I don’t see why we shouldn’t also hold people to that standard when it comes to left-wing social theory.

Hmmm…. Your rebuttal is most interesting.

I note you forget the writings of Mao including his little “Red Book” and countless others…

But, your point is irrelevant. I doubt very few authoritative historians of Nazi Germany have read through the voluminous ravings of Alfred Baeumler, Ernst Krieck, Herman Schmalenbach, and Carl Schmitt. I dare you to try pick up and peruse Alfred Rosenberg! … your frontal lobes will go numb! Somebody can be an authority on Nazism without having read these ideologues, much less Mein Kampf in its entirety. .

Your citation of Kropotkin & Goldman is most ironic! Why fail to mention Aron Baron? … or Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky for that matter?

Your point is irrelevant and the question is moot! The very essence of Marxism is EVIL for ONE simple reason: Human life is a disposable economic commodity. Marx considered the Judeo-Christian notion of the a priori inherent and inviolable worth of each individual as some archaic silly superstition to be sacrificed on the altar of the collective – remember his infamous “opiate of the masses” citation. If history teaches us anything, that simple nihilistic premise will ALWAYS inexorably and inevitably lead to EVIL on unprecedented scale, exactly as Nietzsche predicted. Any naïve idealist not ruthless enough to grasp power by exterminating other worthy luminaries (who represent a political threat) will themselves be eliminated by those more ruthless.

Your list of ideologues is ironically inane. Consider the fate of Baron, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky during Stalin’s reign of Terror. Their stacked tomes of Marxist theorizing (you would have us peruse) became most immaterial during the Purges, no differently than the theoretical musings of Ernst Röhm, Kurt von Schleicher and Gregor Strasser after the Night of the Long Knives.

I am no fan of Ayn Rand, but she did popularize one notion for which she can claim no originality. The commonalities of Marxism and Nazism can be summarized as Political Statism (an idea picked up by von Mises and Hayek). Statism can never succeed, no matter how sincere and idealistic the ideologue, who conjures up, yet again, some other incarnation of the same statist abomination.

All the other authors you are citing are spouting the same nihilistic refrain in the guise of Postmodernism and Identity Politics.

Jordan Peterson has read all the books to which you refer (I cannot be bothered) and here is his response to your post:

Joe Felsenstein:
I have always been confused by the term “cultural Marxism”.However, Mung’s comment has jogged my memory.Yes, now I recall that nearly 50 years ago there was a major upsurge of Cultural Marxism

TomMueller: as a postscript : I find this exchange with you almost surreal, given your nom de guerre as Kantian Naturalist . May I humbly suggest you review Kant’s thesis on Synthetic a priori Moral Truths

I’m a Marxist because I’m a Kantian.

The supreme principle of morality, Kant says, is: “act always so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, as an end in itself also and never as a means only.” This means that one can act immorally by treating oneself as a mere means to someone else’s end. And that’s precisely what capital does to labor, by taking human agency as a commodity.

And one can agree with Marx’s analysis of capital without being committed to “statism”, “collectivism,” or any other hobgoblins.